Case 4100013/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R MacLeod v Wood Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 4100013/2026
- Decision date
- 18 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R MacLeod
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge A Kemp dismissed Mr MacLeod's unfair dismissal claim against Wood Group UK Limited because it was presented out of time and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Mr MacLeod had worked offshore as a plater from 5 April 2023 under a temporary contract that was extended several times. The final extension stated that his employment would end on 7 August 2025 unless extended again. The P45 he received on 22 August 2025 recorded that termination date.
Mr MacLeod began ACAS early conciliation on 4 November 2025, naming the prospective respondent as Wood. ACAS issued its certificate on 10 December 2025. His claim form submitted on 8 January 2026 named Frazer Gregory@WOOD as the respondent because he thought identifying a contact would help. The form was rejected on 9 January because the respondent's name differed from the certificate. His corrected form, naming Wood, was received on 22 January 2026 and accepted with that presentation date. The tribunal found that the deadline was 10 January 2026.
Applying section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that Mr MacLeod had not shown that timely presentation was not reasonably practicable. It accepted his evidence as credible and reliable, took account of his lack of legal representation and applied a liberal interpretation in his favour. However, he knew about the time limit, had researched the process and had submitted a form before the deadline. The tribunal found that careful reading of the form would have avoided the naming error. The stress associated with visiting his father in hospital did not establish that timely presentation was not reasonably practicable.
Although this finding decided the case, the tribunal also held that the further delay was not reasonable. Mr MacLeod knew of the rejection on 9 January 2026, but did not send his reconsideration request and corrected form until around 20 January, when very quick action had been required. The judgment also noted a possible holiday-pay deduction claim, without confirming that it had been made, and stated that the same time-limit test would apply under section 23. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the dismissal, and the judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was out of time; the merits were not determined. The judgment also mentions a possible unauthorised deduction from wages claim concerning holiday pay, but expressly states that it is unclear whether that claim was made. It is therefore not recorded as a separate adjudicated claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996: not reasonably practicable and reasonable further period
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996: extension of time limits for early conciliation
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd: claimant's burden of proof
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council: reasonable feasibility in all the circumstances
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser: reasonable practicability and the effect of stress
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan: liberal interpretation and knowledge of time limits
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy: liberal interpretation and absence of professional advice
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd: objective assessment of a reasonable further period
- Howlett Marine Services Ltd v Bowlam: reasonableness assessed in all the circumstances
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.